REPORT OF THE SECOND MEETING OF THE JASTARNIA GROUP · search was one of the main activities of the...

REPORT OF THE SECOND MEETING OF THE

JASTARNIA GROUP

Stralsund, Germany 7 & 8 February 2006

ASCOBANS Agreement on the Conservation

of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas

ASCOBANS Secretariat United Nations Premises Martin-Luther-King-Str. 8 D-53175 Bonn, Germany

Tel.: +49 228 815 2418 Fax: +49 228 815 2440

E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.ascobans.org

Report of the Second Meeting of the UNEP/ASCOBANS Jastarnia Group Stralsund, Germany, 7 and 8 February 2006

1. Opening Opening the meeting, the Chairman, Stefan Bräger, welcomed the participants and introduced Harald Benke, Director of the German Oceanographic Museum, who had been kind enough to provide the facilities for the meeting. He also welcomed participants to what he described as the most popular museum in Northern Germany, in a town that had just celebrated its 750th anniversary. Cetacean re-search was one of the main activities of the museum, which was the harbour porpoise research centre for the German Baltic coast. The Executive Secretary of ASCOBANS, Rüdiger Strempel, thanked Mr Benke und expressed appre-ciation that the Jastarnia Group had grown considerably since the previous year, and now included representatives from Latvia and Estonia. 2. Adoption of agenda No comments had been received on the draft distributed, the agenda was adopted. 3. Implementation of the Jastarnia Plan, including recommendations of the first Meeting of the

Jastarnia Group The Chairman asked country representatives to report on activities so far: a. Bycatch reduction For Germany, Karl-Hermann Kock reported that there had been little activity due to lack both of fund-ing and availability of staff to undertake projects. Experienced gear technologists were required, rather than students, and this problem was difficult to resolve. However, some progress had just been made on implementing the Jastarnia Plan recommendation to replace gillnets by fish traps, in that 16 traps had been purchased from the company in Norway that manufactured these. Experiments would now start in the western Baltic to establish catch rates, and if these tests were successful it was hoped in 2007 to purchase a further 100 traps for a full-scale study. The trials would be done by commercial fishermen to ensure that the results were convincing. There was little chance that fishermen would make the change to traps without financial assistance from the government, even if catch rates in traps and gill nets were comparable. The many part-time fishermen and their limited financial means were an additional problem. Agreeing, Petra Deimer pointed out that the paper German part-time fishermen in the Baltic Sea and their by-catch of harbour porpoises presented to AC11 indicated that 27% of bycatch in the German Baltic was taken by part-time fishermen alone. This was a very alarming figure. Part-time fishermen were permitted to sell their licences to a successor. Capacity could be reduced by changing this. Sara Königson reported that fish traps had been tried on the Swedish West Coast and also in the Bal-tic. On the West Coast the trials had been abandoned because of the large number of seals caught in the traps. This problem would have to be solved before they could be recommended. Krzysztof Skóra asked if it was planned to use traps in the same places as gillnets. He reported that Polish fishermen were refusing to adopt the new method. Stefan Bräger reminded the Group that the following four bycatch-related points had come out of its first meeting, and were therefore on the agenda for this meeting:

2

- Identification of areas of reported high bycatch and known use of harmful fishing gear Reporting on the Polish situation, Iwona Kuklik said that Puck Bay had been identified as an area of high bycatch, but voluntary reporting by fishermen had ceased after the introduction of Council Regu-lation (EC) No 812/2004, which Polish fishermen were strongly opposed to. 2005 had been the first year with no reported bycatch. This could mean there had been none, but it might also mean that it had not been reported. She suspected that this new problem was also being faced in other areas. It would be a challenge to continue collecting data from this area, voluntary reporting was crucial and observers were not effective. Sara Königson also reported that voluntary reporting by fishermen had ceased since the introduction of the new EU regulations, and Penina Blankett agreed that this was also the case in Finland. Karl-Hermann Kock stated that fairly good reports from a limited area off the Flensburg Fjord had been received thanks to a local doctor with an interest in cetaceans, who passed on reports from his fishermen patients. No information at all was forthcoming from the remainder of the Baltic. Fishermen simply refused to report bycatches, even when the fact was common knowledge. Ivar Jüssi reported that in Estonia there had been no official reports of bycatch in the last 50 years. There had been one known case of bycatch in non-commercial fishery. The extremely rare occurrence of porpoises in Estonian waters meant that it was likely that there had been no bycatch in commercial fisheries during that period. There was opposition to the EC observer programme. However, some fishermen were afraid of sanctions if the requirements were not fulfilled. Valdis Pilats described a similar situation in Latvia. At the end of 2003 and in early 2004 two harbour porpoises had been bycaught, but now fishermen were refusing to provide information. He felt it would also be difficult to install the observer scheme: it was difficult to find both observers and cap-tains willing to take them aboard. Petra Deimer concluded that it was impossible to calculate the ratio between bycaught animals and reported bycatch. Mistrust was growing and there was much misunderstanding. For example fisher-men tended to assume that conservation inevitably meant prohibitions. There was a great need for public awareness activities, not only where fisheries were concerned. Sara Königson agreed and cited a meeting with fishermen about pingers. When their importance had been explained, more of the fishermen thought pingers were not a bad idea. The fishermen’s organisa-tions were also trying to persuade their members to report more. In 1998 a “voluntary logbook” had been introduced. This was kept in addition to the EU logbook, and in exchange for a small financial consideration, to record bycatches of marine mammals (mostly seals), birds and fish. This worked fairly well. Summing up this point, Rüdiger Strempel concluded that there appeared to be confusion among fish-ermen between the Bycatch Regulation and requirements under the Habitats Directive, and also be-tween the requirements of the EU and ASCOBANS. This was becoming a critical problem. Opposi-tion of fishermen to various elements of the recent EU legislation reduced their willingness to cooper-ate and also had a negative impact on the implementation of the Jastarnia Plan. - Reduction of fishing effort in the bottom-set gillnet fishery Sara Königson presented two effort maps of the Swedish gillnet and set net fisheries, produced from EU logbook data. The maps mainly showed where the drift net and gillnet fishing took place, but also showed the pinger test areas (see maps attached as Annex I). She felt that all countries should be in a position to produce similar maps using these data. Stefan Bräger recalled that the first meeting of the Jastarnia Group had made the following recom-mendation (Recommendation 4):

3

Collation of data on fishing effort following the terms of reference and example sheet in the Recov-ery Plan was still outstanding. Therefore: AC13 should send a clear signal to Parties to provide the needed funding Terms of reference for a project request should be formulated Suggestions as to who should carry out the project should be made to the Secretariat; Once funding is in place and possible candidates have been identified, the Secretariat should

coordinate the further steps. Rüdiger Strempel reported that although AC 12 had not accepted all the Group’s recommendations, this one had been accepted. Nevertheless, to date no funding or suggestion that this might be forth-coming had been received. There had also been no suggestion as to who might do this work. The Group reiterated this recommendation. A working group (Monika Chećko, Piotr Gruszka, Karl-Hermann Kock, Sara Königson, Iwona Kuk-lik, Rüdiger Strempel and Jonas Teilmann) was tasked to draft Terms of Reference for presentation at AC13, bearing in mind the basic Terms of Reference to be found on page 10 of the Jastarnia Plan. The Jastarnia Group Chairman would present these Terms of Reference to AC13. Penina Blankett suggested that, if all else failed, it might be possible to obtain funding from the Nordic Council of Ministers, which had dealt with harbour porpoise issues in the past. - Implementation of use of alternative fishing gear Jonas Teilmann reported that Finn Larsen was about to finalise his review of experiments with alterna-tive fishing gear and fishing practices. However, he thought there would be little promising informa-tion in this review. It was decided that the Secretariat should contact Finn Larsen and request a copy of his final report. Asked if the Norwegian traps being used in Sweden were a genuine alternative to set nets, Sara König-son replied that they were not difficult to handle, being of net material, collapsible and fitted with floats. However, they had not been shown to be catch or cost efficient, and catches had been very low. Further studies on the use of bait to increase the catch efficiency were currently being carried out. So-called push-up traps were being used along the Baltic coast. These cost about 12,000 Euros, but their purchase was subsidised. They were replacing set nets for whitefish and pike-perch, and traps for sal-mon and whitefish. Krzysztof Skóra inquired about the popularity of long lines for salmon fishing in other countries. In Poland some fishermen were still using these, but gillnets were now preferred. Karl-Hermann Kock replied that they had been used in Germany until the end of the 1950s, but had now all been replaced by gillnets. Long lines were too short to be an efficient alternative to gillnets, so were of no interest to fishermen. Jan-Erik Holmberg reported that in Sweden fishing with hooks was experiencing a renaissance, and 90% of fishing for cod, which had previously been done by set nets, was now with long lines. These were easy to use (“one man, one boat”), in an automatic cassette with between 2,000 and 3,000 hooks. However, the changeover was very expensive. Jan-Erik Holmberg added that 390 small fishermen were already using this method successfully, and the Swedish government had promised financial assistance when salmon driftnet fishing in the Baltic was phased out in 2008. Karl-Hermann Kock underlined the usefulness of this information. Longlining should be strongly en-couraged, but it was essential to have an idea of the cost involved. Sara Königson agreed that Sweden would submit a document to AC13 giving all the available information regarding the use of this method as well as a breakdown of the costs.

4

b. Impact and implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004, laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No. 88/98 Sara Königson tabled Council Regulation (EC) No 52/2006 (fixing the fishing opportunities and asso-ciated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2006), dated 22 December 2005. This regulation is attached as Annnex II. Stefan Bräger gave a presentation prepared by Steven Benjamins (attached as Annex III), which sum-marised the situation in Denmark concerning Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004. Denmark was one of the few countries that had attempted to estimate total bycatch, the figures arrived at being 4,100 per year in gillnets for cod and turbot, with approximately 3,400 vessels. He noted that the regulation Sara Königson had now provided was only six weeks old, and might change the situation somewhat regarding the Baltic. Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 had three parts: concerning the use of pingers, the observer schemes, and the phase-out of driftnets in the Baltic Sea. From 2006 all gillnet fisheries (about 5% of vessels >15m) in the Baltic must have onboard observers, and a full ban on driftnets in the Baltic would become effective by 2008. This related to approx. 380 fishermen in various countries. Currently, pingers were only mandatory in the Baltic in certain Swed-ish areas. Denmark was testing three types of pingers, with 1.2 mio. USD government funding being provided for their purchase. This funding would cease after 2007. Sara Königson added that the requirement for pingers in the Baltic would come into force only later, and in Sweden currently applied in only two coastal areas. So far, only one fisherman was using them and it had not been possible to persuade others to implement the regulations. More information was now being given, and it was hoped they would start to purchase the pingers, the cost of which was covered 100 per cent. In view of this information, Petra Deimer suggested that more information was needed before pingers became mandatory in Germany and Denmark in 2007. It was important that governments start infor-mation campaigns in good time. Stefan Bräger reported that the RSPCA had prepared a video about pingers for fisherman. A German, Polish and Swedish version had been produced in cooperation with ASCOBANS and would soon be available. They would be distributed free of charge to inform fishermen about the requirements. Jonas Teilmann reported on the use of pingers in Denmark. These were so far mandatory only in the North Sea, but according to latest information only one fisherman was using them, despite the fact that they were available free of charge from fishermen’s organisations, and only the postage had to be paid. There was no enforcement of their use, and without controls they would not be used. (Sara Königson agreed that this was also the situation in Sweden.) But he had just learned that money was available for observers, so at least this part of the regulation would be in force soon. The fishermen needed to gain experience with the use of pingers, but he was confident that after a slow start there would soon be progress. Stefan Bräger inquired about the progress of research on the behaviour of harbour porpoises near ping-ers. Mats Amundin reported on progress regarding the behaviour of harbour porpoises near pingers. The report summarising three years of field work in Denmark was currently being finalised. The Aqua-mark 100 pinger had been tested on harbour porpoises in Kerteminde and convincing evidence of avoidance behaviour had been found. Subsequently an interactive pinger had been developed; this had also triggered convincing avoidance behaviour, with the advantage of less acoustic pollution. This had been followed by an expanded test off the northeast tip of Fyn, using a line of four pingers 100 metres apart, the results of which were now being analysed. It had been found that avoidance behaviour less-ened from year to year, and there had been concern that this might mean interactive pingers were not effective. However, a preliminary interpretation seemed to be that animals echolocating near the ping-ers were indeed aware of the nets and would not swim into them.

5

They had also experimented with more benign “enticing sounds”, and the reactions had been similar to those to the pingers. The study had produced a large quantity of data, which would be submitted as soon as it had been finalised. Mats Amundin enquired whether Jonas Teilmann’s satellite tracking study was likely to show that the same animals returned to the area each year. Jonas Teilmann re-sponded that so far too few animals had been tagged for a longer period to allow any conclusions to be reached on this question. Jonas Teilmann presented some preliminary conclusions from a study currently in progress in the Great Belt. An abstract is attached as Annex IV. Piotr Gruszka enquired about bycatch in nets with and without pingers, and Jonas Teilmann reported there had been 25 bycaught porpoises in nets without and two in nets with pingers. Sara Königsson introduced the document Test of acoustic pingers in the Baltic driftnet fisheries for salmon (attached as Annex V). Both this and the report The range of acoustic pingers in the Baltic and North Sea, prepared by Håkan Westerberg and John Spiesberger and presented at the first Jastarnia Group meeting, showed that pingers will work in the Baltic. Mats Amundin also announced a study about to take place in cooperation with the Swedish Fisher-men’s Association. In the southern Swedish pinger area it was planned to put porpoise click loggers on nets with and without pingers, to record the event and amplitude of clicks to see if porpoises were in the area. This would take place in the summer and autumn of 2006. Sven Koschinski, who had been working on harbour porpoises at the University of Kiel, gave a pres-entation on pingers and porpoises. The presentation is attached as Annex VI. Asked about the effectiveness of barium sulphate nets compared to normal nets, he explained that the addition of a heavy mineral to the net material increased its reflectiveness. Whereas regular nets were detectable at a distance of 3 - 6 metres, it was hoped that this material would make them detectable earlier, provided the animals were echolocating. Initial tests done by Edward Trippel had shown a decrease in bycatch for two years, while in the third year the decrease was no longer statistically significant. (This may, however, have been due to other factors.) No effect was observed on target fish species, but Finn Larsen et al. had found a reduction in the cod catch of 40%. Despite a simultaneous reduction in bycatch Larsen had concluded that this method was not an option. The material was stiffer, which might mean that porpoises –and also fish – “bounced” off the net. The stiffness lessened after 24 hours in the water. A number of questions re-garding barium sulphate nets remained unanswered, so they could not yet be recommended. Asked about manageability of these nets, Sven Koschinski reported that there had been no complaints during his study, but that during a Danish study using iron oxide nets fishermen had been less happy. No studies had yet been done on the stiffness of nets. His was solely a behavioural study, the effec-tiveness having been demonstrated by Edward Trippel and Finn Larsen. It was hoped to obtain more answers in the coming year, when porpoises would be equipped with hydrophones to establish how frequently they echolocate. It was estimated that barium sulphate nets would cost approximately 10% more than normal nets. There was as yet no information on the longevity of the material, which however was found to lose its colour with time and become whiter. (It doesn’t need to be explained, this is exactly what he said, and it makes sense – not lighter, not transparent, but whiter.) Stefan Bräger reminded the group that the Jastarnia Plan did not suggest pingers as a permanent meas-ure, but stated that their use should be revised in 2006 to allow a recommendation to be put to the Meeting of the Parties. However, the EU required their use in parts of the Baltic Sea, and this was causing problems, not just for fishermen.

6

Summing up, the Group concluded that pilot experiments had been conducted, so this recommenda-tion could now be eliminated, but that more research on pingers and the implementation of a pinger programme was needed. The Group therefore recommended that research be stepped up. Following a discussion on the merits of revising the recommendation to Parties regarding the contin-ued use of pingers and their trials the Group recommended the following: − Continuation of pinger trials and extension to areas not covered by EU regulation 812/2004 − Re-evaluation in 2009 in light of EU findings (Art. 1 of Regulation 812/2004) − Continuation of trials on alternative gear and methods − More effective policing Rüdiger Strempel presented a synopsis of EU and Jastarnia Plan requirements. This showed some overlap, but also made it clear that not all requirements of the Jastarnia Plan were addressed by EU legislation. On the other hand, EU legislation contained some requirements that appeared to be coun-terproductive, as demonstrated by the concerns raised earlier by Jastarnia Group members from around the Baltic. The synopsis is attached as Annex VII. Stefan Bräger observed that the Jastarnia Plan called for observers in conjunction with pingers, whereas the EU was implementing separate pinger and observer schemes. Rüdiger Strempel agreed that the only total overlap was for driftnets: “Phase out to a total prohibition”. Krzysztof Skóra enquired about the definition of driftnets, and reminded the meeting that it was not clear whether the “semi-driftnets” used, for example, in Puck Bay, were included in this definition. Penina Blankett said that Finland had a similar problem with coastal fishery in the Gulf of Bothnia. The fishermen had been banned from using their nets and and Finland had asked the Commission for clarification. No clarification had been received. Nets anchored at one end only were used in both countries. Finland wanted its small-scale white fishing industry excluded from the regulation, Poland wanted a clear definition. c. Research and Monitoring Introducing this item, Stefan Bräger recalled that at the last meeting of the Group he had presented a research project that at the time had been in the planning phase. The project was now in progress as part of Germany’s commitment to the Jastarnia Plan. Anja Meding reported on the findings of the first year of the so-called Jastarnia Project. The presentation is attached as Annex VIII. Monika Chećko opened the ensuing discussion by apologising for the lack of information from Po-land; the Polish monitoring scheme was now being implemented. She explained that the scheme would concern the effects of using gillnets, and felt that the situation was rather different to that in other countries because of the different kind of gear used in Puck Bay. She would like more attention to be devoted to this aspect. She enquired how cooperation with German fishermen had been during monitoring and data collection. Stefan Bräger replied that there had been little cooperation with fishermen on this project, although the German Oceanographic Museum historically had a good relationship with the fishery sector. The Di-rector, Harald Benke, had introduced small rewards to fishermen for delivering bycaught animals, which had sometimes persuaded them to bring a porpoise in. The cooperation could be described as good but limited. Monika Chećko was afraid fishermen would not give the support so urgently needed. Cooperation had been excellent before the introduction of EU regulation 812/2004, but had ceased altogether since. Yet, scientific data were essential if the regulation was to be implemented. Jonas Teilmann reported that in Denmark cooperation had been good until the high bycatch rate be-came known, when it stopped entirely. However, fishermen were beginning to see that this was

7

counter-productive, and they were now being persuaded to resume cooperation. Fishermen were paid a small sum to cover the expense of taking an observer on board, and this now seemed to be working well. The observers were retired fishermen themselves, and so talked the same language and were trusted. This was better than using students or biologists as observers. Penina Blankett said that Finnish data had been sent to be included in the German database, and more historical data would be submitted soon. Finland was currently collecting data on opportunistic sight-ings since 2000, and had about 41 observations. The Finnish navy was also cooperating on this pro-ject, and was picking up sounds, although at the moment they were unwilling to say where. All this data would be sent to the Research and Technology Center Westcoast soon. Finland had also sent some samples from between 1996 and 1999, after which the fishermen had ceased to cooperate. This data could be found at www.fimr.fi/en.html. Iwona Kuklik noted that one of the maps in the presentation was not complete and showed an incor-rect picture of the Baltic. She felt it was important to mention that some countries had not submitted data, otherwise there was a danger of conveying the impression that there were no porpoises in certain areas because there were no reports. Regarding the DNA analysis of subpopulation structures in the Baltic, it was agreed that the genetics workshop proposed by Jonas Teilmann at the last meeting should now take place and the Secretariat would be informed when this would take place. It was important for the scientists involved to meet to agree on methods. Jonas Teilmann felt it was important to establish if there was a separate population in the eastern Baltic, and where the transition line was. He had applied for funding in Denmark for a project of which this workshop would be part if support was forthcoming. The workshop should be limited to the Baltic area. This did not preclude having an ASCOBANS-wide workshop later. Rüdiger Strempel confirmed that ASCOBANS would provide funding for the workshop. Regarding a related project, namely the international database on opportunistic sightings, strandings and bycatch addressed at the first meeting of the Group, Rüdiger Strempel raised the question of its continuation when German funding ran out at the end of 2008. He had offered to host this on the AS-COBANS website, but this would require funding, which Parties would have to provide. Karl-Hermann Kock asked about the cost of continuing to maintain the database, and Stefan Bräger replied that the database, being the smallest part of the project, was very underfunded. He had little information on the current status or future requirements. After 2007 it could be separated from the main project and funded from another source. It was intended to be a database for online entry of data. Piotr Gruszka reported that Coalition Clean Baltic had agreed to support these projects and activities and could establish a web site for the database. He suggested that CCB and the ASCOBANS Secre-tariat could cooperate on this, and the Group supported this proposal. Ivar Jüssi reported that Estonia had also submitted data to the research and monitoring project and that an acoustic survey had begun in 2004. This was on quite a small scale to test the devices, but as of Spring 2006 there would be a larger study covering Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and part of Russia. This was part of the LIFE project to designate marine protected areas. He also presented Estonia’s historical data on harbour porpoise bycatch and sightings. Both in Estonia and in Finland there had been peaks during the 1930s. Penina Blankett confirmed that many newspa-per articles and photographs documented this. During the 1940s there had been three winters when the entire Baltic had frozen over, and many since then when it had been partially ice-covered. Since the 1940s the numbers reported had fallen rapidly. Valdis Pilats reported that there had been two bycaught harbour porpoises in Latvia in the last 40 years, so there was little monitoring going on, and no reserach was being planned, apart from the LIFE project already mentioned by Ivar Jüssi.

8

Penina Blankett expressed the wish for a similar kind of project for Finland and Sweden, i.e. the northern part of the Baltic, because the animals also went into the Gulf of Bothnia. Jonas Teilmann suggested gathering some initial data and then focussing all the pods on this area, but Iwona Kuklik reminded the meeting that the 20 km-wide entrance to Puck Bay – an area of so-called high bycatch – had been more or less closed off with a line of 12 pods, but this had resulted in only two detections over a period of two years. In this context Stefan Bräger briefly described two parts of the SCANS II project, using two different kinds of hydrophones, hull-mounted and towed. He reported that the hull-mounted hydrophones had not worked very satisfactorily, probably due to noise from the ship and from wave action. Jonas Teilmann reported that the towed hydrophones were working well. These were automatic, with click detectors, and were towed 200 metres behind the ship. There was a lot of equipment still avail-able from SMRU, which could be borrowed for dedicated surveys. Jonas Teilmann reported that the ICES study group on the effects of sound in the marine environment (GSESME) had been active for some years, and that information on their findings would be available on the ICES home page in the not too distant future. It was announced that there would be a pre-meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee i.a. on anthro-pogenic noise, to be held on 24/25 May 2006 in St Kitts & Nevis. Regarding the proposal that the AC should consider commissioning a report on EU legislation, Rüdi-ger Strempel said that this was a recommendation the AC had made but had not followed up. He still considered it would be very useful to have an overview of the relevant legislation. However, the Se-cretariat would not be able to do a full study, and this would have to be commissioned. The Group decided to reiterate the recommendation, asking Parties to provide funding. Concerning the fisheries monitoring programmes, Rüdiger Strempel reported that he had no informa-tion about derogations pursuant to Article 16d of the Habitats Directive. Stefan Bräger enquired whether fisheries organisations had been contacted as required by Recommen-dation 8 of the first meeting of the Jastarnia Group. Rüdiger Strempel assumed that this had not yet happened because the derogation was required before animals could be transported. Karl-Hermann Kock felt it might be more feasible to contact individual fishermen and ask them per-sonally to land and deliver dead porpoises. Writing to fishermen’s associations was unlikely to pro-voke any positive reaction from fishermen to provide more information on bycatch, let alone bycaught porpoises. Any recommendation to fishermen to do so would require very careful wording. Jonas Teilmann reminded the Group that funding would still be required to pay fishermen for their trouble, as well as for transport, laboratories and other infrastructure. Karl-Hermann Kock stressed that although in Germany 50 Euros were paid for this, and the animals were collected at the harbour, the response was almost nil. d. Marine protected areas − Cataloguing of marine habitats of Natura 2000 relevant to harbour porpoise protection and moni-

toring system of harbour porpoise occurrence within those areas Rüdiger Strempel reported that the Advisory Committee had made a decision but had not yet acted upon it. It was unclear who was expected to prepare this catalogue, and neither a time line nor a person or entity had been named.

9

Stefan Bräger reported that Germany had two Special Protection Areas in its EEZ, one of which was on the Baltic coast (Pomeranian Bay). Another five proposals for Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in the German Baltic had been sent to Brussels. He enquired about progress in establishing such areas in other countries. Penina Blankett reported that there would be no Natura 2000 areas for harbour porpoises in Finland because the animal was not on the list. Regarding Poland, Iwona Kuklik reported that Puck Bay would be a Natura 2000 area for harbour porpoises and fish, as would the western part of the coast near the Pomeranian Bay. Harbour porpoises were included in the list because they occur there. Piotr Gruszka expressed the opinion that the Baltic habitat protection sites were not well represented in the Polish government’s proposals. The area around Puck Bay also covered Hel Peninsula, but no strictly marine habitats had yet been proposed. However, the entire Polish Baltic Sea had been pro-posed as a chain of Special Protection Area for birds. He also felt that the Polish part of the Oder Bank should be included in Natura 2000 (as Special Areas of Conservation under the EU “Habitats” Direc-tive), if only because it was known that harbour porpoises concentrated there. It was an anomaly that the German side of the Oder Bank had been proposed, but not the Polish side. Rüdiger Strempel considered that a catalogue was required of the areas that had already been declared – rather than those proposed – to identify gaps that should be bridged by creating more protected ar-eas. The Commission was in possession of the required information, which would need to be checked for its relevance to harbour porpoises. The discussion appeared to indicate, however, that producing such a catalogue at this stage would be a difficult, if not impossible, task. Penina Blankett suggested that HELCOM might be able to undertake this work. They had already made a list of Natura 2000 sites where seals could be found, and – in response to Ivar Jüssi’s interjec-tion that this list was partly incorrect – she thought this task would be easier with respect to harbour porpoises. The Group recommended that ASCOBANS contact HELCOM on this question. Stefan Bräger agreed that although harbour porpoises were protected throughout the whole area and not just in the SACs, it would be useful to have a list of relevant sites already declared, which would require constant maintenance. Its purpose should also be specified, i.e. either as a reminder to Parties that particular areas should be declared, or to encourage them to create more SACs. Karl-Hermann Kock reminded the meeting that the areas under discussion were not specifically target-ted to protect harbour porpoises. There was one larger area in the German North Sea, but he felt that the others that included harbour porpoises in their lists of species were too small to protect animals passing through. If the harbour porpoise was the prime species, ideally very large areas needed to be protected. Although this was unlikely to be acceptable, a compromise might be sought. Jonas Teilmann suggested as a first step defining the factors important for the life of the porpoise. Once these criteria had been established the next step would be to demonstrate how the animals could be protected in the relevant areas. Following some discussion of the best way to proceed, the Group decided to recommend to AC13 the holding of a one-day workshop to establish guidelines for the identification of sites of importance for the harbour porpoise. It was agreed to hold the meeting in Bonn on 4 September 2006, and that the participants would include Penina Blankett, Stefan Bräger, Piotr Gruszka, Ivar Jüssi, Karl-Hermann Kock and Jonas Teilmann, plus additional participants not present at the meeting but who might be proposed by Parties. The guidelines thus developed would be circulated to the members of the Jastarnia Group for ap-proval, and presented to the Meeting of the Parties as an information document.

10

HELCOM would be asked for assistance in the form of their guidelines on marine protected areas, and information from their database. This would be requested within the framework of the cooperation agreed between ASCOBANS and HELCOM. Stefan Bräger volunteered to take the lead in organising this workshop, with the assistance of Penina Blankett and support from the Danish National Environmental Research Institute, which was already working on such guidelines for national sites in Denmark. It was agreed that such guidelines would be a useful aid to identifying possible proposed sites, and that Parties should also be asked to feed them into the EC legislation process as appropriate. e. Public awareness − Standardized Baltic campaign for reporting harbour propoise occurrence and bycatch Petra Deimer reported on the sighting scheme initiated by GSM in cooperation with sailors and others at sea. The organisation had written to 160 marinas asking their members to contribute, and had dis-tributed questionnaires, small posters and bookmarks with contact details. More than 850 reports of sightings had been received during the 2005 season, mostly in Danish waters, but some also from the western Baltic. The German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) had put all the infor-mation into a map, and the data could be viewed on the internet. This information helped to show where harbour porpoises occurred, and reputed arguments by opponents of Natura 2000 sites that there were no porpoises in these areas. GSM would be presenting a document to AC13 with more statistical detail. She added that an increasing number of sailors were now travelling east, so more reports were being received from these areas. GSM was also producing a press release for the International Day of the Baltic Harbour Porpoise (IDBHP), and would be inviting all sailors to take part. This year the IDBHP was being combined with a competition that would run until 22 October 2006, for the best photograph or video footage of the animal. Petra Deimer also reported articles in local newspapers and in the yachting press, and two documenta-ries on the harbour porpoise that had been shown on German TV. A recent installment of the popular prime-time TV series “Küstenwache” had also focussed on the harbour porpoise. Penina Blankett reported that Finland's harbour porpoise observation campaign had been running since 2001, but that there had only been one reported sighting in 2005. There was a website questionnaire for the information, but also a contact telephone number. In 2005 a small poster showing the differ-ence between harbour porpoises and seals had been produced in both Finnish and Swedish. There was an annual IDBHP press release, and the day had been celebrated at Särkänniemi Dolphinarium in Tampere in 2005. It was hoped that other museums around the coast would participate in future. Krzysztof Skóra reported that the position in Poland was not good. No money had been received from the Polish government for public awareness, but Hel Marine Station had been particularly active since the reporting system collapsed in the face of the EU regulations. Hel Marine Station was now targeting the general public rather than fishermen, but he believed that these would eventually decide to cooper-ate again. There was considerable media activity, and a new project, “The Blue Village” was being planned. Funding was currently being sought to establish a small facility for harbour porpoises at Hel Marine Station as part of this ten-year project. The IDBHP had been celebrated in Hel, Gdynia and Sopot, but there was a lack of funds and manpower to do so all along the Polish coast. The public in the area were very aware of the problem, but more money was required, for example to pay for the 100,000 - 200,000 information leaflets needed annually. He suggested that ideally these should be produced by ASCOBANS as part of a standardised campaign for the entire Baltic region, and could include posters, leaflets and CDs in various langauges.

11

Hel Marine Station had produced a harbour porpoise calendar for 2006, and in March two competi-tions were being launched: one for paintings of Baltic sea mammals and the second - for readers of the largest Polish newspaper – to identify photographs of these animals. These campaigns were being sponsored by a number of commercial enterprises. They had also worked on the Polish version of the RSPCA video, which would be distributed in Po-land. In 2006 there would also be a new initiative, in cooperation with the fishing industry, to produce canned fish with a special label identifying it as having been caught by “porpoise friendly” methods. The opening of the ECS conference, which was being held in this part of Europe for the first time, would be marked in the city of Gdynia by the unveiling of a harbour porpoise monument. Rüdiger Strempel reported that many of the ASCOBANS Secretariat’s efforts had been devoted to organising the IDBHP throughout the Baltic, and trying to enlist further institutions and individuals to take part. This was becoming a fairly successful event, and the media were now taking note. There had been events in Bonn in the last two years, but much depended on cooperation with partners in the Bal-tic countries. Concerning the question of leaflets, he said that the ASCOBANS brochure was available in all Baltic languages except Russian. The Secretariat was suffering severe budgetary constraints but it was hoped to produce a Russian version in the coming triennium, hopefully next year. A specific Baltic poster was also available in all languages except Russian. He agreed that more information material was needed, but stressed that the Secretariat could not continue to fund all of this without financial support. More support, for example in the form of additional voluntary contributions, was needed. Rüdiger Strempel also iterated (stated?) that the Secretariat had cofunded the RSPCA’s pinger video, in three languages plus English. The Secretariat had checked the German translation and would assist in distributing the CD. The Secretariat was also working on a project for Baltic ferries, but work was still in the early stages. Rüdiger Strempel again stressed the importance of Parties nominating national focal points for public awareness, and that the staff named should have time to devote to this task. This was important both to help extend the IDBHP events and to advise on how local fishing communities should best be con-tacted. Also, it had previously been agreed that Parties needed support the Secretariat in diffusing in-formation, and it was essential that Parties nominate national focal points for public information as this could not be done from Bonn. Iwona Kuklik reported that Coalition Clean Baltic was producing an eight-page leaflet on the harbour porpoise. This would be in English and Polish, A5 format, with maps etc., and might be used as the standard leaflet. Piotr Gruszka asked for feedback on the content, layout etc. and reported that it was planned to have only 5,000 copies in English and 3,000 copies in Polish printed initially. Rüdiger Strempel agreed that, provided funding was available, the Secretariat could coordinate with Polish colleagues to produce translations into other Baltic languages. He felt this was more important than an English version. The meeting recommended that more funds be made available for the production of information material in the languages of the Baltic. Valdis Pilats presented some photographs showing an exhibition at the Natural History Museum in Riga to mark the IDBHP. This included a plastic cast of a harbour porpoise that had been bycaught and taken to the museum for investigation.

12

Stefan Bräger enquired whether the Secretariat had a list of sighting schemes and all relevant contact numbers, to put on the website. This was not the case, and it was agreed to supply this information, including links to the relevant websited, to the Secretariat. f. Cooperation with other relevant organizations and bodies Rüdiger Strempel reported that there was some measure of cooperation between ASCOBANS and HELCOM and that the exchange of national reports, for example, worked very well. Collaboration with the EC remained difficult. The Secretariat also cooperated well with various NGOs, scientific institutions, museums etc. througout the Baltic region. Stefan Bräger suggested that ASCOBANS and the Jastarnia Group could be strengthened by strength-ening such ties with bodies and scientists in the Baltic area. Rüdiger Strempel agreed, and asked par-ticularly for help in making contact with relevant individuals and organisations in Russia. Piotr Gruszka stated that CCB worked with NGOs in St Petersburg and Kaliningrad and would contact them to enquire about a contact person for ASCOBANS. Rüdiger Strempel said that it might be possi-ble to fund a Russian NGO represenatative to attend AC13, as such contacts were very important. Ivar Jüssi also said that he had good contacts in the Baltic Fund for Nature in St Petersberg. He would contact them, but information should come directly from the Secretariat. This organisation was gather-ing information regarding the planned new protected areas, so had the best expertise in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland. 4. Re-evaluation of the Recovery Plan Stefan Bräger reminded the group that it was tasked with defining the points of the Recovery Plan that should be re-evaluated at the next meeting of the Advisory Committee. Not all of these had yet been agreed upon. Open questions were still the definition of net types and a definition of the area itself. The Group discussed the problems arising from the lack of clear definitions of the types of fishing gear specified in EC regulations. It was also noted that the Jastarnia Plan itself was not specific and only referred to "bottom set gillnets" and "drift nets". Both omitted to mention, for example, the so-called "semi-drift nets" used in Poland and some Finnish areas, which were now banned under the EC ban on drift nets. The difference between tangle nets and gill nets referred to in EU legislation was not clear either. Monika Chećko pointed out that despite much discussion on the subject, the European Commission had been unable to arrive at clear-cut definitions. Krzysztof Skóra reiterated that clear definitions of different types of nets were, however, essential. Piotr Gruszka added that in fact a clear definition was required by the inspectors, and that normally each kind of gear was identified by a number. It was unusual that no such code should exist for the semi-driftnets. The Group recommended that Parties should remind the European Commission that clear defini-tions were needed but lacking, and ask them to rectify the situation. ASCOBANS would be willing to assist in drafting definitions. There was some discussion about a definition of the area covered by the Jastarnia Plan. Petra Deimer stressed that the western Baltic was also covered by the Plan and although harbour porpoises there might not yet be endangered, information from that area should also be included so that data were available if required later. Rüdiger Strempel replied that it was indeed a misconception that “Baltic” meant the area east of the Limnhamn/Darss Ridge. The Plan did not actually contain a definition of the Baltic. However he sug-gested that this could be accommodated by aligning the definition with the borders as defined by

13

HELCOM. HELCOM had attributed the role of lead agency on harbour porpoises to ASCOBANS. Therefore this definition would also make sense for political reasons. Krzysztof Skóra declared that the harbour porpoise was protected because it was a migratory species, but that the Jastarnia Plan was drafted according to the types of fishery. It needed borders, but inside those the plan should be flexible. Petra Deimer reminded the meeting that a recovery plan for the Baltic was in place, and a plan for the North Sea porpoise was now being drafted. The North Sea Plan, however, would not cover the Skager-rak, Kattegatt and Belt Seas. If these were not contained in the Baltic Plan they would be left uncov-ered, and adopting the HELCOM definition would therefore be the best solution. Iwona Kuklik objected, because the eastern Baltic population needed special treatment. Krzysztof Skóra repeated that a border was required – if only to enable the Plan to be implemented. Rüdiger Strempel stated that even if the HELCOM definition of the Baltic were adopted, it would still be possible to target measures at specific areas or sub-populations. Jonas Teilmann recalled that the fact that the area covered by the Jastarnia Plan was not defined in the original plan was due to the uncertainty regarding the distribution of the depleted harbour porpoise stock in the Baltic Sea. Although this uncertainty remained unresolved, the Jastarnia Plan area needed to be defined for management and practical reasons, and to avoid confusion on the plan’s coverage. He suggested using the HELCOM area as the “area of interest”, and the Baltic proper, Bothnian Bay and Gulf of Finland - with its very low and depleted density of harbour porpoises - as the “focus area”. Jonas Teilmann pointed out, however, that the latter area could not be defined precisely until it had been proven that a genetically distinct population existed and its range had been defined. It was therefore decided that the area covered by the Jastarnia Plan should coincide with the HEL-COM area. Arguments in favour of this choice were that ASCOBANS was the specialised agency for cetaceans within HELCOM, that it was important to avoid any gap between the areas covered by the Jastarnia Plan and by the North Sea Recovery Plan, currently in preparation. Additional advantages in choosing the HELCOM area were the direct relevance of data collected by HELCOM, and the fact that the area included areas of high porpoise density. These were important as reference areas, and might also serve as a pool of animals that could reoccupy the Baltic proper and areas further north. 5. Any other business It was decided that the Jastarnia Group should meet again in approximately one year's time. Oliver Schall, who attended the second day of the meeting in his function of German coordinator, expressed his concern regarding an EC Ministerial conference held in January 2006 regarding the de-velopment of so-called “Motorways of the Sea”, which it regarded as important because of an ex-pected 70 percent increase in marine traffic. He was concerned about the danger to cetaceans of ship strikes. The EC press release dated 23 January 2006 is attached as Annex IX. Oliver Schall also of-fered the good news is that Germany was preparing a project dedicated to the problems caused by high-speed ships. Iwona Kuklik announced that the twentieth annual ECS Conference would be held in Gdynia, Poland from 2-7 April 2006, and would be dedicated to the harbour porpoise. ECS had been dedicated to har-bour porpoises from the beginning, and this was the symbol of the conference. Registration should be via the ECS webpage. She also offered Jonas Teilmann space to hold the genetic workshop at the same venue. This generous offer was gratefully accepted. Stefan Bräger informed the Group that there would be a conference at the German Oceanographic Museum on Marine Conservation in Europe from 8-12 May. As soon as the programme had been finalised he would forward it to Group members.

14

6. Closure of the Meeting Summing up the meeting, Rüdiger Strempel felt that it had been productive and useful, proving that the initial idea of an e-mail working group would not have been successful. It was agreed that the Group should meet again in the first half of February 2007, at the beginning of the new triennium. Options for a suitable venue were discussed, and it was decided that Stefan Bräger, as Chairman, would enquire after the Meeting of the Parties if a Party was willing to host this. Failing such an invi-tation, the meeting could take place in Bonn, taking advantage of the in-house facilities in the new premises. In any case the venue should be easily accessible. Stefan Bräger, as Chair of the Group, and Rüdiger Strempel, on behalf of the Secretariat, thanked all Group members for their participation in and contributions to the meeting. They also reiterated their thanks to Harald Benke and to the staff of the German Oceanographic Museum for enabling the meet-ing to be held there.

Recommendations

The Group formulated the following recommendations, to be submitted to the forthcoming 13th Meeting of the Advisory Committee: 1. The area covered by the Jastarnia Plan should be defined as coinciding with the HEL-

COM area, thus including several populations of harbour porpoises which may be endan-gered to varying degrees.

2. Interim research on pingers and the implementation of a pinger programme should be

stepped up. This means inter alia: • Continuation of pinger trials and extension to areas not covered by EU regulation

812/2004; • Continuation of trials on alternative gear and methods. The reduction in fishing effort called for in the Jastarnia Plan should nonetheless remain the top priority.

3. More enforcement of pinger use and the monitoring of its efficiency should be ensured. 4. At the latest in 2009 pinger use should be re-evaluated in light of current findings (Art. 7

of EC Regulation 812/2004) 5. The Secretariat should contact Finn Larsen and request a copy of his final report on ex-

periments with alternative fishing gear and fishing practices. 6. Collation of data on fishing effort following the terms of reference and example sheet in

the Jastarnia Plan is still outstanding. Therefore: • AC13 should send a clear signal to Parties to provide the needed funding; • Terms of reference for a project request should be formulated; • Suggestions as to who should carry out the project should be made to the Secretariat; • Once funding is in place and possible candidates have been identified, the Secretariat

should coordinate the further steps. 7. A joint Baltic genetic study should be undertaken to bring together information from the

whole Baltic; Parties should be asked to provide funding for this. 8. A sub-group of 5-10 people should meet for a one-day workshop to discuss and agree on

the methods to be used in the above study. The Secretariat should explore the possibility of funding the workshop, which should be organized jointly by Jonas Teilmann and the Secretariat in 2006.

9. The ASCOBANS Secretariat and CCB should cooperate on the continuation of the web-

based, international database on opportunistic sightings, strandings and bycatch (started by Germany) after 2007, and seek further assistance from Parties and outside sources.

10. The Advisory Committee should explore the possibility of commissioning a report on EU

legislation relevant to harbour porpoise conservation and therefore to ASCOBANS. AS-COBANS should contact HELCOM on this question as HELCOM had already compiled a list of Natura 2000 sites for seals.

11. A one-day workshop to establish guidelines for the identification of sites of importance

for the harbour porpoise should be held in Bonn on 4 September 2006. 12. More funds should be made available for the production of information material in the

languages of the Baltic Sea region. 13. Parties should remind the European Commission that clear definitions of fishing gear

used in the Baltic were needed but missing in the relevant legislative acts, and ask the Commission to rectify the situation. ASCOBANS would be willing to assist in drafting definitions.

Second Meeting of the UNEP/ASCOBANS Jastarnia Group 7 & 8 February 2006, Stralsund, Germany

List of Participants

Mats Amundin Kolmårdens Djur & Naturpark 61892 Kolmården Sweden Tel. ++46 11 24 90 18 Fax ++46 11 24 90 65 [email protected] Penina Blankett Ministry of the Environment Land Use Department P.O. Box 35 00023 GOVERNMENT Finland Tel. ++358 9 160 39518 Fax ++358 9 160 39364 [email protected] Stefan Bräger (Chairman) German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Island of Vilm 18581 Potbus Germany Tel. ++49 38301 86141 Fax ++49 38301 86150 [email protected] Monika Chećko Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development ul. Wspólna 30 00-930 Warsaw Poland Tel. ++48 22 623 ……. Fax ++ 48 22 623 ……. [email protected] Petra Deimer Gesellschaft zum Schutz der Meeressäugetiere Garstedter Weg 4 25474 Hasloh Germany Tel. ++49 4106 4712 Fax ++49 4106 4775 [email protected]

Piotr Gruszka Polish Ecological Club Krolewicza Kazimierza 4/H 71-550 Szczecin Poland Tel. +48 91 4231 061 Fax +48 91 4231 347 [email protected] Jan-Erik Holmberg Swedish Fishermen’s Federation Amerikaskjulet, uppg. G 414 63 Göteborg Sweden Tel. +46 31 12 45 90 Fax +46 31 24 86 35 [email protected] Ivar Jüssi State Nature Conservation Centre, Narva 7A 15172 Tallinn Estonia Tel. +372 5028 313 [email protected] Sara Königson National Board of Fisheries Institute of Coastal Research P.O. Box 423 40126 Göteborg Sweden Tel. ++46 31 743 0422 Fax ++46 31 743 0444 [email protected] Karl-Hermann Kock Institut für Seefischerei Bundesforschungsanstalt für Fischerei Palmaille 9 22767 Hamburg Germany Tel. ++49 40 38 905 104 Fax ++49 40 38 905 263 [email protected]

Iwona Kuklik Stacja Morska Instytutu Oceanografii Uniwersytet Gdański ul. Morska 2 84-150 Hel Poland Tel. ++48 58 675 0836 Fax ++48 58 675 0420 [email protected] Valdis Pilats Gauja National Park Administration Baznicas Iela 3 2150 Sigulda Latvia Tel. +371 7971 665 Fax +371 7971 344 [email protected] Oliver Schall Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Robert-Schuman-Platz 3 53175 Bonn Germany Tel +49 228 305 2632 Fax +49 228 305 2684 [email protected] Krzysztof Skóra Stacja Morska Instytutu Oceanografii Uniwersytet Gdański ul. Morska 2 84-150 Hel Poland Tel. ++48 58 675 0836 Fax ++48 58 675 0420 [email protected] Jonas Teilmann National Environmental Research Institute Frederiksborgvej 399 4000 Roskilde Denmark Tel. ++45 46 30 19 47 Fax ++45 46 30 19 14 [email protected]

UNEP/ASCOBANS Secretariat Rüdiger Strempel UNEP/ASCOBANS Secretariat Martin-Luther-King-Strasse 8 53175 Bonn Germany Tel. ++49 228 815 2418 Fax ++49 228 815 2440 [email protected] Patricia Stadié UNEP/ASCOBANS Secretariat Martin-Luther-King-Strasse 8 53175 Bonn Germany Tel. ++49 228 815 2416 Fax ++49 228 815 2440 [email protected] Invited Expert Sven Koschinski Kühlandeweg 12 24326 Nehmten Germany Tel. +49 4526 381 716 [email protected] Guests Christopher Honnef Deutsches Meeresmuseum Katharinenberg 14-20 18439 Stralsund Tel. +49 3831 2650 391 [email protected] Anja Meding Deutsches Meeresmuseum Katharinenberg 14-20 18439 Stralsund Tel. +49 3831 2650 393 [email protected] Ursula Verfuss Deutsches Meeresmuseum Katharinenberg 14-20 18439 Stralsund Tel. +49 3831 2650 390 [email protected]

Annex I

Effort of the Swedish gillnet fishery in the south and central Baltic. Bottom set nets with a meshsize of 50 to 220 mm included. Data taken from the Swedish EU logbook.

.0 to 39994000 to 72997300 to 1099911000 to 1449914500 to 1809918100 to 2199922000 to 2499925000 to 100000

Effort of the Swedish driftnet fishery in the South and Central Baltic. Nets with a mesh size of 35 to 180 mm included. Data taken from the Swedish EU logbook.

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 52/2006

of 22 December 2005

fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups offish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2006

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the EuropeanCommunity,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainableexploitation of fisheries resources under the CommonFisheries Policy (1), and in particular Article 20 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 6 May1996 introducing additional conditions for year-to-yearmanagement of TACs and quotas (2), and in particular Article 2thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 requires theCouncil to adopt the measures necessary to ensure accessto waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit offishing activities, taking account of available scientificadvice and, in particular, the report prepared by theScientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fish-eries.

(2) Under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, it isincumbent upon the Council to establish fishingopportunity limits by fishery or group of fisheries andthe allocation of these opportunities to Member States.

(3) In order to ensure effective management of the fishingopportunities, the specific conditions under whichfishing operations are carried out should be established.

(4) The principles and certain procedures for fisherymanagement need to be laid down at Community level,so that Member States can ensure the management of thevessels flying their flag.

(5) Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 lays downdefinitions of relevance for the allocation of fishingopportunities.

(6) In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96, the stocks that are subject to the various measuresreferred to therein need to be identified.

(7) Fishing opportunities should be used in accordance withthe Community legislation on the subject, and inparticular with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1381/87 of 20 May 1987 establishing detailed rules concerningthe marking and documentation of fishing vessels (3),Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 of 22 Sep-tember 1983 laying down detailed rules for recordinginformation on Member States' catches of fish (4),Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October1993 establishing a control system applicable to thecommon fisheries policy (5), Commission Regulation(EC) No 2244/2003 of 18 December 2003 laying downdetailed provisions regarding satellite-based Vessel Mon-itoring Systems (6), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 of 22 September 1986 defining characteristics forfishing vessels (7), Council Regulation (EEC) No 3880/91of 17 December 1991 on the submission of nominalcatch statistics by Member States fishing in the north-eastAtlantic (8), and Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fisheryresources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea,the Belts and the Sound (9).

(8) In order to contribute to the conservation of fish stocks,certain supplementary measures on control and technicalconditions of fishing should be implemented in 2006.

(9) In order to ensure the livelihood of Communityfishermen and avoid endangering resources and anypossible difficulty due to the lapsing of Regulation (EC)No 27/2005, it is important to open these fisheries on1 January 2006. Given the urgency of the matter, it isimperative to grant an exception to the six-week periodreferred to in paragraph I(3) of the Protocol on the roleof national Parliaments in the European Union, annexedto the Treaty on European Union and to the Treatiesestablishing the European Communities,

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.(2) OJ L 115, 9.5.1996, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 132, 21.5.1987, p. 9.(4) OJ L 276, 10.10.1983 p. 1. Regulation as last amended by

Regulation (EC) No 1804/2005 (OJ L 290, 4.11.2005, p. 10).(5) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by

Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (OJ L 128, 21.5.2005, p. 1).(6) OJ L 333, 20.12.2003, p. 17.(7) OJ L 274, 25.9.1986, p. 1. Regulation as amended by

Regulation (EC) No 3259/94 (OJ L 339, 29.12.1994, p. 11).(8) OJ L 365, 31.12.1991, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by

Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2005 (OJ L 74,19.3.2005, p. 5).

(9) OJ L 349, 31.12.2005, p. 1.

Annex II

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

CHAPTER I

SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS

Article 1

Subject matter

This Regulation fixes fishing opportunities for the year 2006for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks in the BalticSea and the associated conditions under which such fishingopportunities may be used.

Article 2

Scope

1. This Regulation shall apply to Community fishing vessels(Community vessels) and fishing vessels flying the flag of, andregistered in, third countries operating in the Baltic Sea.

2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, this Regulationshall not apply to fishing operations conducted solely for thepurpose of scientific investigations which are carried out withthe permission and under the authority of the Member Stateconcerned and of which the Commission and the Member

State in whose waters the research is carried out have beeninformed in advance.

Article 3

Definitions

In addition to the definitions laid down in Article 3 ofRegulation (EC) No 2371/2002, for the purposes of thisRegulation the following definitions shall apply:

(a) the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea(ICES) zones shall be as defined in Regulation (EEC)No 3880/91;

(b) ‘Baltic Sea’ means ICES Divisions IIIb, IIIc and IIId;

(c) ‘total allowable catch (TAC)’ means the quantity that canbe taken from each stock each year;

(d) ‘quota’ means a proportion of the TAC allocated to theCommunity, a Member State or a third country.

CHAPTER II

FISHING OPPORTUNITIES AND ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS

Article 4

Catch limits and allocations

The catch limits, the allocation of such limits among MemberStates and additional conditions in accordance with Article 2of Regulation (EC) 847/96 are set out in Annex I to thisRegulation.

Article 5

Special provisions on allocations

1. The allocation of catch limits among Member States asset out in Annex I shall be without prejudice to:

(a) exchanges made pursuant to Article 20(5) ofRegulation (EC) No 2371/2002;

(b) reallocations made pursuant to Articles 21(4), 23(1)and 32(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93;

(c) additional landings allowed under Article 3 ofRegulation (EC) No 847/96;

(d) quantities withheld in accordance with Article 4 ofRegulation (EC) No 847/96;

(e) deductions made pursuant to Article 5 ofRegulation (EC) No 847/96.

2. For the purpose of withholding quotas to be transferredto 2007, Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 mayapply, by way of derogation from that Regulation, to allstocks subject to analytical TAC.

20.1.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 16/185

Article 6

Conditions for catches and by-catches

1. Fish from stocks for which catch limits are fixed shall beretained on board or landed only if:

(a) the catches have been taken by vessels of a MemberState having a quota and that quota has not beenexhausted;

(b) the catches form part of a Community quota andthat quota has not been exhausted, or

(c) species other than herring and sprat are mixed withother species, the catches have been taken withtrawls, Danish seines or similar gears whose meshsize is less than 32 mm, and the catches are notsorted either on board or on landing.

2. All landings shall count against the respective quota,except for catches made under paragraph 1(c).

3. Where the quota for herring allocated to a Member Stateis exhausted, vessels flying the flag of that Member State,registered in the Community, and operating in thefisheries to which the relevant quota apply shall not landcatches that are unsorted and that contain herring.

Article 7

Fishing effort limits

Fishing effort limits are set out in Annex II.

Article 8

Transitional technical and control measures

Transitional technical and control measures are set out inAnnex III.

CHAPTER III

FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 9

Data transmission

When, pursuant to Article 15(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, Member States send data to the Commission relating tolandings of quantities of stocks caught, they shall use the stockcodes set out in Annex I to this Regulation.

Article 10

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of itspublication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 December 2005.

For the Council

The President

B. BRADSHAW

L 16/186 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.1.2006

ANNEX I

Landings limits and associated conditions for year to-year management of catch limits applicable to Communityvessels in areas where catch limits exist by species and by area

The following tables set out the TACs and quotas (in tonnes live weight, except where otherwise specified) by stock,the allocation to the Member States and associated conditions for year-to-year management of the quotas.

Species: HerringClupea harengus

Zone: Subdivisions 30-31HER/3D30.; HER/3D31.

Finland 75 099Sweden 16 501

EC 91 600

TAC 91 600Analytical TAC.

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96applies.


Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/96applies.


Zone: Subdivisions 22-24HER/3B23.; HER/3C22.; HER/3D24.

Denmark 6 658Germany 26 207Finland 3Poland 6 181Sweden 8 451

EC 47 500







Zone: Subdivisions 25-27, 28.2, 29 and 32HER/3D25.; HER/3D26.; HER/3D27.; HER/3D28.;HER/3D29.; HER/3D32.

Denmark 2 548Germany 676Estonia 13 015Finland 25 404Latvia 3 212Lithuania 3 382Poland 28 861Sweden 38 744

EC 115 842


Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96does not apply.




Zone: Subdivision 28.1HER/03D.RG

Estonia 18 472Latvia 21 528

EC 40 000






Species: CodGadus morhua

Zone: Subdivisions 25-32 (EC-waters)COD/3D25.; COD/3D26.; COD/3D27.; COD/3D28.; COD/3D29.; COD/3D30.; COD/3D31.;COD/3D32.

Denmark 10 415Germany 4 143Estonia 1 015Finland 797Latvia 3 873Lithuania 2 551Poland 11 993Sweden 10 552

EC 45 339


Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96does not apply



Species: CodGadus morhua

Zone: Subdivisions 22 –24 (EC waters)COD/3B23.; COD/3C22.; COD/3D24.

Denmark 12 395Germany 6 061Estonia 275Finland 244Latvia 1 026Lithuania 665Poland 3 317Sweden 4 417

EC 28 400






Species: PlaicePleuronectes platessa

Zone: IIIbcd (EC waters)PLE/3B23.; PLE/3C22.; PLE/3D24.; PLE/3D25.; PLE/3D26.; PLE/3D27.; PLE/3D28.; PLE/3D29.; PLE/3D30.; PLE/3D31.; PLE/3D32

Denmark 2 698Germany 300Sweden 203Poland 565

EC 3 766

TAC Not relevantAnalytical TAC.




Species: Atlantic salmonSalmo salar

Zone: IIIbcd (EC waters) excluding Subdivision 32SAL/3B23.; SAL/3C22.; SAL/3D24.; SAL/3D25.;SAL/3D26.; SAL/3D27.; SAL/3D28.; SAL/3D29.;SAL/3D30.; SAL/3D31.

Denmark 93 512 (1)Germany 10 404 (1)Estonia 9 504 (1)Finland 116 603 (1)Latvia 59 478 (1)Lithuania 6 992 (1)Poland 28 368 (1)Sweden 126 399 (1)

EC 451 260 (1)

TAC 460 000 (1)Analytical TAC.




(1) Expressed by number of individual fish.


Species: Atlantic salmonSalmo salar

Zone: Subdivision 32SAL/3D32.

Estonia 1 581 (1)Finland 13 838 (1)

EC 15 419 (1)

TAC 17 000 (1)Analytical TAC.




(1) Expressed by number of individual fish.

Species: SpratSprattus sprattus

Zone: IIIbcd (EC waters)SPR/3B23.; SPR/3C22.; SPR/3D24.; SPR/3D25.;SPR/3D26.; SPR/3D27.; SPR/3D28.; SPR/3D29.;SPR/3D30.; SPR/3D31.; SPR/3D32.

Denmark 41 512Germany 26 299Estonia 48 204Finland 21 730Latvia 58 219Lithuania 21 060Poland 123 552Sweden 80 250

EC 420 826






ANNEX II

FISHING EFFORT LIMITS

1. Fishing with trawls, seines or similar gears of a mesh size equal to or greater than 90 mm or with bottom setgillnets, entangling nets and trammel nets of a mesh size equal to or greater than 90 mm or with bottom setlines shall be prohibited:

(a) from 15 March to 14 May in subdivisions 22-24, and

(b) from 15 June to 14 September in subdivisions 25-27.

2. For vessels flying their flag, Member States shall ensure that fishing with trawls, seines or similar gears of a meshsize equal to or greater than 90 mm or with bottom set gillnets, entangling nets and trammel nets of a meshsize equal to or greater than 90 mm or with bottom set lines shall be prohibited for:

(a) 30 calendar days in subdivisions 22-24 outside the period from 15 March to 14 May, and

(b) 27 calendar days in subdivisions 25-27 outside the period from 15 June to 14 September.

3. At the request of the Commission, Member States shall provide a description of the system applied to ensurecompliance with point 2.

4. By way of derogation from points 1 and 2, Community vessels with an overall length of less than 12 metresshall be permitted to retain on board and land up to 10 % cod by live weight when fishing with gillnets,entangling nets and/or trammel nets with a mesh size equal to or greater than 110 mm.


ANNEX III

TRANSITIONAL TECHNICAL AND CONTROL MEASURES

1. Restrictions on fishing

1.1. All fishing activity within the areas enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following positions,which shall be measured according to the WGS84 coordinate system, is prohibited from 1 May to 31October.

Area 1:

— 55o45'N, 15o30'E

— 55o45'N, 16o30'E

— 55o00'N, 16o30'E

— 55o00'N, 16o00'E

— 55o15'N, 16o00'E

— 55o15'N, 15o30'E

— 55o45'N, 15o30'E

Area 2:

— 55o00'N, 19o14'E

— 54o48'N, 19o20'E

— 54o45'N, 19o19'E

— 54o45'N, 18o55'E

— 55o00'N, 19o14'E

Area 3:

— 56o13'N, 18o27'E

— 56o13'N, 19o31'E

— 55o59'N, 19o13'E

— 56o03'N, 19o06'E

— 56o00'N, 18o51'E

— 55o47'N, 18o57'E

— 55o30'N, 18o34'E

— 56o13'N, 18o27'E


1.2. By way of derogation from point 1.1, fishing with gillnets, entangling nets and trammel nets with mesh sizeequal to or greater than 157 mm or with lines shall be permitted. When fishing with lines, no cod shall beretained on board.

2. Monitoring, inspection and surveillance in connection with the recovery of cod stocks in the BalticSea

2.1. Special permit for fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea

2.1.1. By way of derogation from Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1627/94 of 27 June 1994 laying downgeneral provisions concerning special fishing permits (1), all Community vessels of an overall length equal toor greater than 8 m carrying on board or using any gear authorised for cod fishing in the Baltic Sea andSound in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 shall hold a special permit for fishing for cod in theBaltic Sea.

2.1.2. A Member State may issue the special permit for fishing for cod referred to in point 2.1.1 only to Communityvessels holding in 2005 a special permit for fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea in accordance with point 6.2.1 ofAnnex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 the fishingopportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable inCommunity waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2). However, aMember State may issue a special permit for fishing for cod to a Community vessel, flying the flag of thatMember State, not holding a special fishing permit in 2005 if it ensures that equivalent capacity, measured inkilowatts (kW), is prevented from fishing in the Baltic Sea with any gear referred to in point 2.1.1.

2.1.3. Each Member State shall establish and maintain a list of vessels holding a special permit for fishing for cod inthe Baltic Sea and make it available on its official website to the Commission and other Member Statesbordering the Baltic Sea.

2.1.4. The master of a Community vessel, or his/her authorised representative, to which a Member State has issued aspecial permit for fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea shall keep a copy of this permit on board the fishing vessel.

2.2. Logbooks

By way of derogation from Article 6(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (3), the masters of Community vesselsof an overall length equal to or greater than 8 m shall keep a logbook of their operations in accordance withArticle 6 of that Regulation.

2.3. Margin of tolerance

By way of derogation from Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2807/83 of 22 September 1983laying down detailed rules for recording information on Member States' catches of fish (4), the permittedmargin of tolerance in estimating quantities, in kilograms, of fish that are retained on board Communityvessels shall be 8 % of the logbook figure.

However, for catches which are landed unsorted the permitted margin of tolerance in estimating quantitiesshall be 8 % of the total quantity landed.


(1) OJ L 171, 6.7.1994, p. 7.

(2) OJ L 12, 14.1.2005, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1936/2005 (OJ L 311, 26.11.2005, p. 1).



2.4. Prior notification

2.4.1. Fishing vessels fishing in Community waters of Subdivision 22-24 (Area A) or in Subdivision 25-32 (Area B)must comply with the following conditions:

(a) commence fishing in either Area A or B with less than 100 kg of cod on board;

(b) if the vessel has more than 300 kg of cod on board when leaving either Area A or B and by way ofderogation from Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, the master of the vessel shall notify thecompetent authorities of the flag State one hour before leaving the Area of:

(i) the time and position of exit,

(ii) the quantities of species in live weight for all catch retained on board,

(iii) the name of the landing location and the estimated time of arrival at that location;

(c) when the fishing is finished and the vessel has more than 100 kg of cod on board it shall:

(i) go directly to port within the Area it has been fishing and land the fish, or

(ii) go directly to port outside the Area where it has been fishing and land the fish. When leaving theArea where it has been fishing the nets shall be stowed so that they may not readily be used inaccordance with the following conditions:

— nets, weights and similar gear shall be disconnected from their trawl boards and towing andhauling wires and ropes,

— nets which are on or above deck shall be securely lashed to some part of the superstructure;

(d) Vessels referred to in (b) shall not commence discharging until authorised by the competent authorities.

2.4.2. Point 2.4.1 shall not apply to vessels equipped with vessel monitoring systems in accordance with Articles 5and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003. However, such vessels shall transmit their catch report on a dailybasis to the Fisheries Monitoring Centre of the flag Member State, provided for by Article 3(7) of Regulation(EEC) No 2847/93, for inclusion in its computerised database.

2.5. Designated ports

2.5.1. When a vessel retains more than 750 kg live weight of cod, that cod may be landed exclusively at designatedports.

2.5.2. Each Member State may designate ports at which any Baltic cod in excess of 750 kg is landed.

2.5.3. Within 15 days of the date of entry into force of this Regulation, each Member State that has established a listof designated ports shall maintain and make available on its official website to the Commission and otherMember States bordering the Baltic Sea a list of designated ports. The list shall include the relevant contactdetails for the submission of logbooks and landing declarations when landing in that Member State.

2.6. Weighing of cod first landed

2.6.1. The competent authorities of a Member State may require that any quantity of cod caught in the Baltic Seaand first landed in that Member State be weighed in the presence of controllers before it is transportedelsewhere from the port of first landing.


2.6.2. Each Member State shall set specific inspection benchmarks. Such benchmarks shall be revised periodicallyafter analysis of the results achieved. Inspection benchmarks shall evolve progressively until the targetbenchmarks defined in Appendix 1 are reached.

2.7. VMS messages

2.7.1. Member States shall ensure that the following data received pursuant to Articles 8, 10(1) and 11(1) ofRegulation (EC) No 2244/2003 are recorded in a computer–readable form:

(a) each entry into, and exit from, port;

(b) each entry into, and exit from, maritime areas where specific rules on access to waters and resourcesapply.

2.7.2. Member States shall verify the submission of logbooks and relevant information recorded in the logbook byusing VMS data. Such cross-checks shall be recorded and made available to the Commission on request.

2.8. Prohibition on transit and transhipment

2.8.1. Transit within the areas closed for cod fishing is prohibited unless the fishing gear on board is securely lashedand stowed in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 20(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93.

2.8.2. Trans–shipment of cod is prohibited.

2.9. Transport of Baltic cod

By way of derogation from Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, Baltic cod of more than 50 kglanded for transport by Community vessels having an overall length equal to or more than 8 m shall beaccompanied by a landing declaration as provided for in Article 8(1) of that Regulation.

2.10. Joint surveillance and exchange of inspectors

2.10.1. Member States shall undertake joint inspection and surveillance activities and shall establish joint operationalprocedures to that effect.

2.10.2. Member States engaged in joint inspection and surveillance activities shall ensure that inspectors from each ofthe participating Member States are invited to partake at least in these activities.

2.10.3. Commission inspectors may participate in these joint inspection and surveillance activities.

2.10.4. A meeting of the competent national inspection authorities shall be convened by the Commission before31 January 2006 to coordinate the joint inspection and surveillance programme for 2006.

2.11. National control action programmes

2.11.1. Member States concerned shall define a national control action programme for the Baltic Sea in accordancewith Appendix 2.

2.11.2. Before 31 January 2006, Member States concerned shall make available to the Commission and otherMember States bordering the Baltic Sea on its official website the national control action programme referredto in point 2.11.1, together with an implementation schedule.

2.11.3. The Commission shall convene a meeting of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture to evaluate thecompliance with and results of the national control action programmes for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea.


3. Restrictions on fishing for flounder and turbot

3.1. The retention on board of the following species of fish which are caught within the geographical areas andduring the periods mentioned below shall be prohibited:

Species Geographical area Period

Flounder (Platichthys flesus) Subdivisions 26 to 28, 29 southof 59o30'N

Subdivision 32

15 February to 15 May

15 February to 31 May

Turbot (Psetta maxima) Subdivisions 25 to 26, 28 southof 58o50'N

1 June to 31 July

3.2. By way of derogation from point 3.1, when fishing with trawls, Danish seines and similar gears with a meshsize equal to or greater then 105 mm or with gillnets, entangling nets or trammel nets with a mesh size equalto or greater than 100 mm, by-catches of flounder and turbot may be retained on board and landed within alimit of 10 % by live weight of the total catch retained on board and landed during the periods of prohibitionreferred to in that point.


Appendix 1 to Annex III

Common rules for national control programmes

Objective

1. Each Member State shall set specific inspection benchmarks in accordance with the aims set out in thisAppendix.

Strategy

2. Inspection and surveillance of fishing activities shall concentrate on vessels likely to catch cod. Randominspections of transport and marketing of cod shall be used as a complementary cross-checking mechanism totest the effectiveness of inspection and surveillance.

Priorities

3. Different gear types shall be subject to different levels of inspection, depending on the extent to which the fleetsare affected by fishing opportunity limits. For that reason, each Member State shall set specific priorities.

Target benchmarks

4. Not later than one month from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, Member States shall implementtheir inspection schedules with the aim of attaining the targets set out below:

(a) Level of inspection in ports

As a general rule, inspections shall aim to cover 20 % by weight of cod landings covering all places oflanding.

Alternatively:

(i) inspections shall be undertaken at such frequency with the aim that during a three-month period anumber of Community vessels that account for 20 % or more by weight of cod landings areinspected at least once;

(ii) this may be based on a simple random sampling or by using an appropriate sampling plan whichwould achieve at least the same level of accuracy.

(b) Level of inspection of marketing

Inspection of 5 % of the quantities of cod offered for sale at auction.

(c) Level of inspection at sea

Flexible benchmark: to be set after a detailed analysis of the fishing activity in each area. Benchmarks at seashall refer the number of patrol days at sea in the cod management areas, with possibly a separatebenchmark for days patrolling specific areas.

(d) Level of aerial surveillance

Flexible benchmark: to be set after a detailed analysis of the fishing activity conducted in each area andtaking the available resources at the Member State's disposal into consideration.


Appendix 2 to Annex III

Contents of national control action programmes

National control action programmes shall aim, inter alia, to specify the following.

1. MEANS OF CONTROL

Human resources

1.1. The numbers of shore-based and seagoing inspectors and the periods when, and zones where, they are to bedeployed.

Technical resources

1.2. The numbers of patrol vessels and aircraft and the periods when, and zones where, they are to be deployed.

Financial resources

1.3. The budgetary allocation for deployment of human resources, patrol vessels and aircraft.

2. DESIGNATION OF PORTS

Where relevant, a list of ports designated for cod landings in accordance with point 2.5.3 of Annex III.

3. PRIOR NOTIFICATION

Description of the systems implemented to ensure compliance with the provisions in point 2.4 of Annex III.

4. LANDINGS CONTROL

Description of any facilities and or systems implemented to ensure compliance with the provisions in points2.3, 2.5 and 2.6 of Annex III.

5. INSPECTION PROCEDURES

The national control action programmes shall specify the procedures that will be followed:

(a) when conducting inspections at sea and on land;

(b) for communicating with the competent authorities designated by other Member States as responsible forthe national control action programme for cod;

(c) for joint surveillance and exchange of inspectors, including specification of powers and authority ofinspectors operating in other Member States' waters.


Harbour porpoise bycatchmanagement in Denmark:

Recent developments

Steven BenjaminsMemorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

Harbour porpoise bycatchmanagement in Denmark

• Occurrence of harbour porpoise bycatchrecognized for many years

• Most are caught in large-mesh gillnets for Atlantic cod and turbot

• Average estimate of harbour porpoise bycatch between 1994-2001: ~4,100/year

Danish fishing fleet

• ~ 3,400 vessels

• Many small-boat fishermen using gillnets

• Reduction in quotas has caused significant numbers of vessels to be “decommissioned”(scrapped or refitted), to reduce overcapacity

Source: Thorfisk.dk

E.U. Council Regulation 812/2004 of 26.4.2004

laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98

• Use of active acoustic deterrent devices

• At-sea observer schemes

• Gradual phase-out of driftnets in the Baltic sea

EU Council Regulation 812/2004 of 26.4.2004 (cont.)

Use of active acoustic deterrent devices:

• ALL vessels ²12 m, fishing with bottom-set gillnets, driftnets and trammel nets in North Seaand certain areas in the Baltic Sea, are now required to equip their nets with pingers• This will later be extended to the Celtic shelfand the English Channel• Responsibility lies with the individual fishermen• Long-term effectiveness needs to be monitored

1.01.2006

1.01.2007

1.01.2007

Source: ICES

Pingers are now mandatory in certain fisheries in these areas, and are supposed to become so in the other areas in the coming years

Annex III


At-sea Observer schemes:

• Member states are now required to implement dedicated small cetacean bycatch observer programmes for certain fisheries involving vessels ²15 m

• Observers need to be “properly qualified and trained”

• For smaller vessels, “appropriate” bycatchstudies are required

As of 1.01.2005, these fisheries are included:

Pelagic trawls in

- ICES subareas VI, VII

and VIII

- The Mediterranean

Source: ICES

As of 1.01.2005, these fisheries are included:

Pelagic trawls in

- ICES subareas VI, VII and VII

- The Mediterranean

Gillnets (²80 mm mesh) in

- ICES divisions VIa,

VIIa/b, VIIIa/b/c, and IXa

Source: ICES

As of 1.01.2006, these fisheries will also have to be covered:

Driftnets in

- ICES subareas IV, VIa, VII except VIIc, VIIk

Source: ICES


Driftnets in

- ICES subareas IV, VIa, VII except VIIc, VIIk

Pelagic trawls in

- ICES subareas III, IV, and IX

High-opening trawls in

- ICES Subareas VI, VII, VIII and IX

Source: ICES


Gillnets (²80 mm mesh) in - ICES Subarea IIIb/c/d

Source: ICES


Driftnet ban in Baltic sea:

• Set to be phased out during 2005-2007

• Full ban supposed to come into force by 2008

• Affects ~ 350 fishermen in various countries

The timetable for introduction of pingers:

From June 1, 2005:

- in driftnets, gillnets, trammel nets in selected Baltic waters, year round

- in large-mesh (Ó220 mm) gillnets and trammel nets in North sea, Skagerrak/

Kattegat, year round

From August 1, 2005:

- in wreck gillnet fisheries in North sea, Skagerrak/

Kattegat, between August 1 - October 31

From January 1, 2007:

- in driftnets, gillnets, trammel nets in all remaining Danish Baltic waters (ICES subarea 24), year round

The timetable for introduction of pingers: Which pingers?

• EU Council regulation sets technical specifications for pingers, but makes no recommendation

• Currently, 3,000 pingers of 3 types are being subjected to a large-scale handling/reliability trial by Danish fishermen

Who pays for the pingers?

• The Danish Fishermen’s Association has received funds to buy 12,000 pingers, to be rented to fishermen for a small fee

• Total cost is DKK 7.4 million (~US$ 1.2 million),half of which is paid by the E.U., and half by the Danish government

• No plans for continued government funding after 2007

Annex IV

Habituation and habitat exclusion of harbour porpoises in a simulated gillnet fishery with pingers Jørgensen, P.B.1, 2, Teilmann, J.1, Tougaard, J.1, Bech, N.I.1, Kyhn, L.A.1 and Dabelsteen, T.2 1) National Environmental Research Institute, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark. 2) University of Copenhagen, Institute of Biology, Tagensvej 16, DK-2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark. Abstract A large number of harbour porpoises are by-caught in gillnets. As a consequence, use of pingers is now mandatory in a wide range of EU gillnet fisheries. The purpose of this study was to investigate habitat exclusion and habituation to pingers in a simulated fishery where pingers were deployed and recovered repeatedly. The fieldwork was carried out from mid April to mid October 2005 in a high density porpoise area of the Great Belt, Denmark. Acoustic data loggers (T-PODs) detected the presence of harbour porpoises. Seven T-PODs were deployed in two impact areas (0.6km2) and at three control stations. Distances from control station to nearest pinger were 2.5, 3 and 5km, respectively. Fifteen SafeWave 30-160kHz sweep, 155 dB and 55 Airmar 10kHz 132 dB pingers were deployed in each area. To simulate fishery procedures the pingers were cyclically activated and deactivated for 50 days, each ON- or OFF period lasting between one and five days. The presence of harbour porpoises was significantly lower during periods with active pingers. Harbour porpoise encounters gradually increased from 6% and 8% of the control station levels during first exposure period to 62% and 32% during the last exposure period for the Safewave and Airmar pingers, respectively. This indicate a gradual partly habituation to both pinger types during the 50 days experiment. Similar response to both pinger types were found. Pingers also affected the control areas, where median click rates decreased by 30% when pingers were active compared to inactive. This effect, however, was less pronounced on the encounter rate. Pinger sounds could be measured about 2 km away, while the porpoise behaviour was altered up to 5 km away. This indicates that the effect on the porpoise behaviour may extent outside the acoustic range of pingers and that the maximum range of effect remains to be studied. Previous studies have shown that porpoises habituate to pingers that are continuously active for a long period of time. Our results indicate that porpoises also habituate to pingers when these are activated and deactivated cyclically, resembling real fishery, and that habitat exclusion is an important consideration.

Annex V

Swedish Board of Fisheries 2006-02-01 Sara Königson, Stig Lundin and Håkan Westerberg

Test of acoustic pingers in the Baltic driftnet fisheries for salmon Introduction Acoustic pingers have been tried in many fisheries for the purpose of decreasing the by-catches of small cetaceans. Several trials have shown that pingers do reduce the entanglement risk for harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) (Kraus et al., 1997 and Larsen, 1999). Studies have been carried out both in the North Sea and in the Pacific Ocean. The pingers have not been tried in the Baltic where it has been suggested that the signal emitted from the pinger might propagate different in the Baltic Sea because of the special acoustic conditions there. The Baltic Sea is a shallow brackish sea with a strong halocline at a depth of 40 until 80 meter. In the summer a thermocline develops in the upper 10 to 20 meters. Westerberg and Spiesberger (2003) conducted a comparative modelling study of sound propagation through waters in both the Baltic and North Sea. There conclusion was that there are no differences in how a pinger signal will propagate in The North Sea compared to the Baltic and that pingers also can be used in the Baltic Sea. A pilot study was performed in the south central Baltic with the main purpose to study if the pingers did affect the catch in the driftnet fishery . We also wanted to test the possibility to use the pingers in a commercial fishery for salmon (Salmon salar). Methods The study was conducted in April, May and October 2002. Observers joined four commercial fishermen on their fishing trips fishing for salmon with drift nets. In April and May the fishing took place in the south Baltic and in October in the central Baltic (Figure 1). These are areas were conflicts with harbour porpoises are most probable to occur. From 16 to 38 links with nets were set at dawn and emptied around 7 hours later. The links were 630 meter long and the nets had a meshsize of 160 mm (knot to knot 80 mm). The nets are set just beneath the surface and connected to a float with a radar reflector. The float on one side of the nets also had a light to make it easier to locate the net. The fishing boat drifts along the nets until it is time to retrieve them again. Pingers were connected to at least 2 net links and at the most 15 net links on every fishing occasion. Links with pingers were randomly chosen. Pingers were attached to every side of the link just beneath the float and in the middle of the net link. The pingers in the middle were sewed in to a net bag and then attached to the upper part of the net. At every fishing occasion the observers noted the catch, by-catch and effort.

Figure 1. The location of the fishing settings is shown with red squares outside Kristianstad and more in the central Baltic outside Kalmar. Results and discussion A total of 344 net links were set out during 16 fishing occasions. 11 fishing occasions took place during the spring and 5 in the fall. There were no significant difference in the CPUE of salmon between nets with pingers and nets without pingers during any of the time periods (Table 1). Table 1. Number of fishing occasions, set net links and the CPUE of salmon per link and fishing occasion. Time period

No of fishing occasions

No of net links with pingers

No of netlinks with no pingers

CPUE for nets with pingers

CPUE for nets with no pingers

23/4-23/5

11 68 150 1.58 1.47

16/10-21/10

5 68 58 7.41 7.55

There was no by-catch of harbour porpoises in links with or without pingers. A number of sea birds were by-caught. During the spring period 11 sea birds were caught in the 218 net links. All of them were released alive. In the fall 32 birds were caught and 16 birds released alive again. The by-catch of other no-target fish species were small, 0.33 fish per fishing occasion. The handling of the pingers gave no major problems in the commercial salmon drift net fisheries even though they did add some extra work for the fishermen. The pingers used in this experiment were of an older model than the ones being used today. The manufacturer has now developed a pinger that is more adapted to the requirements in the commercial fisheries. These experiments showed that the CPUE of salmon did not decrease when pingers were used on driftnets. It also showed that pingers can be used in the commercial fisheries, especially if a new model is being used. It did not on the other hand show that the by-catches of harbour

porpoises decrease when using pingers because neither links with or without pingers did catch any harbour porpoises. This was expected given the low number of porpoises in the Baltic. According to a telephone survey made in 2001, none of the interviewed fishermen had by-caught any harbour porpoise during the last 10 years, indicating that porpoises are very rare in the Baltic Sea (Lunneryd et a. 2004). References Kraus, S.D., Read, A.J., Solow, A., Baldwin, K., Spradlin, T., Anderson, E., and Williamson, J. 1997. Acoustic alarms reduce porpoise mortality. Nature, 388: 525-526 Larsen, F. 1999. The effect of acoustic alarms on the by-catch of harbour porpoises in the Danish North Sea gill net fishery: a preliminary analysis. Paper presented to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, Grenada, June 2000, SC/52/SM28. 12p Westerberg and Spiesberger, 2003. The range of acoustic pingers in the Baltic and the North Sea. Report to the ASCOBANS 10th AC meeting. Bonn, Germany 9-11 April 2003. Lunneryd, S.G., Königson, S., Sjöberg, N.B., 2004. By-catch of seals, harbour porpoises and birds in the Swedish Commersial fisheries. Report in Swedish with english summary. Finfo 2004:8

Pingers and Porpoises

Photo credit: GSM e.V.

Presentation to Jastarnia groupStralsund 7 February 2006

Sven Koschinski

Pingers and Porpoises

•pinger characteristics

•pinger research

•why do pingers work?

•concerns about pingers

•possible alternatives

Pinger characteristics

Lien Pinger

•early prototype•frequency 2.5 kHz•source level 115 dB (re 1µPa)•strong harmonics•fixed pulse duration•fixed interpulse interval


Dukane Pinger (NetMark 1000)•frequency 10 kHz•source level 130 dB (re 1µPa)•strong harmonics•fixed pulse duration•fixed interpulse interval


PICE Pinger

•frequency 20-160 kHz randomised ‚sweeps‘•source level 145 dB (re 1µPa)•strong harmonics•fixed pulse duration•randomised interpulse interval


Annex VI

Pinger research

experiments in fisheries

Pinger research

experiments in fisheries

behavioural experiments

Pinger research

Lien et al. 1995 (Gulf of Maine)

•2.5 kHz, 115 dB pinger prototype

•by-catch reduced by 80 %

•7% lower catch of cod and pollock

•some problems regarding study design

fishery experiments

Pinger research

Kraus et al. 1997(Gulf of Maine)

•10 kHz, 132 dB Dukane-type pinger

•by-catch reduction of over 90 %

•no reduction of cod catch

•pollock catch reduced during one season

fishery experiments

Pinger research

Trippel et al. 1999 (Bay of Fundy)

•10 - 13 kHz, >133 dB Dukane-type pinger

•by-catch reduction of 80 %

•no reduction of cod and pollock catch

fishery experiments

Pinger research

Gearin et al. 2000 (Washington)

•3 + 20 kHz, 122 dB, Lien type

•95 % by-catch reduction in 2 yrs,85 % in 3rd yr

•no reduction of catch

•in 3rd year all nets with pingers,bycatch higher than expected, 11 of 12 bycatches during last two weeks of 2 month study

•habituation?

fishery experiments

Pinger research

Larsen et al. 2002 (Danish North Sea wreck net fishery)

•20 to 160 kHz, 145 dB PICE pinger

•1993-2000 19 bycaught porpoises without pingers

•2000-2001 0 bycaught porpoisesin pinger nets

fishery experiments

Pinger research

Koschinski & Culik 1997

•2.9 kHz, 115 dB Lien pinger

•Median closest observed approach

control 23 m pinger 127 m

•approach distance decreased from 170 to 50 m over 12 days of pinger use (n. s.)

•habituation?


Pinger research

Laake et al. 1998 (Washington)

•3 + 20 kHz, 122 dB, modified Lien type pinger

•displacement of porpoise surfacings by 125 m


Pinger research


Pinger research

Culik et al. 2001 (PICE pinger, 145 dB)Median closest observed approachcontrol 82 m pinger 372 m


Pinger research

Cox et al. 2001

•10 kHz, 132 dB Dukane pinger

•porpoises initially displaced by 208 m

•reduced by 50 % within 4 days

•habituation


Why do pingers work?

Possible reasons for lower by-catch

•porpoises are alerted

•fish (prey) is deterred

•porpoises are deterred by aversive sound

Features which make a pinger deterrent

•strong harmonics

•high source level

Concerns about pingers

•long-term effectiveness

•habitat exclusion

•malfunctioning pingers produce „black holes“ in the net pretending safe escape

•problems with maintenance

•technical problems

•not useful for endangered species/stocks

Possible alternatives

•reduction of fishing effort

•time/area closures, sanctuaries

•alternative fishing gear

•inter-active pingers

•barium sulphate nets

•warning sound

barium sulphate nets

Koschinski et al. 2006

Possible alternatives

target strength of barium sulfate net7.2 dB higher

At the barium sulfate net click intervals were significantly longer

median 51ms vs. 45.2 ms

If porpoises targeted the net this would translate into a 4.4 m longer range

ReferencesCox, T. M., A. J. Read, A. Solow, & N. Trengenza. 2001. Will harbour porpoises (Phocoena

phocoena) habituate to pingers? J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 81-86

Culik, B. M., S. Koschinski, N. Tregenza, & G. M. Ellis. 2001. Reactions of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms. Marine Ecology Progress Series 255-260

Gearin, P. J., M. E. Gosho, J. L. Laake, L. Cooke, R. L. Delong, & K. M. Hughes. 2000. Experimental testing of acoustic alarms (pingers) to reduce bycatch of harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in the state of Washington. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. Vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-9. 2000. 1-9

Koschinski, S., & B. Culik. 1997. Deterring harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from gillnets: Observed reactions to passive reflectors and pingers. Rep.Int. Whal.Commn. 47: 659-668.

Koschinski, S., B. M. Culik, E. A. Trippel, & L. Ginzkey. 2006. Behavioral reactions of free-ranging harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) encountering standard nylon and BaSO4 mesh gillnets and warning sound. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. in prep.

Kraus, S. D., A. J. Read, A. Solow, K. Baldwin, T. Spradlin, E. Anderson, & J. Williamson. 1997. Acoustic alarms reduce porpoise mortality. Nature 388: 525

Laake, J., D. Rugh, L. Baraff, & S. WA. A. F. S. C. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Observations of Harbor Porpoise in the Vicinity of Acoustic Alarms on a Set Gill Net

Larsen, F., M. Vinther, & C. Krog. 2002. Use of pingers in the Danish North Sea wreck net fishery. Rep.Int.Whal.Comm. SC/54/SM32. International Whaling Commission. Cambridge, UK. 8 pp.

Trippel, E. A., M. B. Strong, J. M. Terhune, & J. D. Conway. 1999. Mitigation of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) by-catch in the gillnet fishery in the lower Bay of Fundy. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 113-123

Synopsis of measures recommended by the Jastarnia Plan

and relevant measures required under

Council Directive No. 92/43/EEC of 21.5.1992,

Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004 of 26.4.2004

And Council Regulation (EC) No. 2187/2005 of 21.12.2005

Jastarnia Plan Council Directive

No. 92/43/EEC of

21.5.1992, as last

amended by

Regulation (EC)

No. 1882/2003 of

29.9.2003

Council

Regulation (EC)

No. 812/2004 of

26.4.2004

Council

Regulation (EC)

No. 2187/2005 of

21.12.2005

A. Bycatch Reduction

i. Reduction of fishing

effort in certain

fisheries:

Measures should be

taken to reduce the

fishing effort of Baltic:

- driftnet fisheries [Progressive phase-

out of driftnets

from 1 January

2005 to 31

December 2007;

(Article 9 (2) and

(3));

Total prohibition of

driftnets as from 1

January 2008

(Article 9 (1))]

Progressive phase-

out of driftnets

from 1 January

2005 to 31

December 2007;

(Article 9 (2) and

(3));

Total prohibition

of driftnets as from

1 January 2008

(Article 9 (1),

Article 31)

- bottom-set gillnet

fisheries

Reduction of use

of gillnets to a

maximum length

of 9 km for vessels

up to and including

12 m and 21 km

for vessels over 12

m in length;

limiting of

immersion time to

48 hours

(Article 8 (1) and

(2))

Annnex VII

ii. Change of fishing

methods away from

gear known to be

associated with high

porpoise bycatch (i.e.

driftnets and bottom-

set gillnets) and

towards alternative

gear that is considered

less harmful:

Immediate initiation of

trials of fish traps, fish

pots, and longlines,

with the long-term

goal of replacing

gillnets in the cod

fishery, particularly in

areas where porpoises

are known or expected

to occur frequently.

iii. Compilation of

standardized data on

fishing effort by means

of:

Member States to

establish a system

to monitor the

incidental capture

and killing of

cetaceans

(Article 12 (4) in

conjunction with

Annex IV lit a))

Member States to

monitor

conservation status

of species and

habitats covered by

Article 2 of the

Directive

(Article 11)

Mandatory

observers for

vessels with an

overall length of

15m or over

(Article 4 and

Article 5 in

conjunction with

Annex III)

- Contract study.

- Elaboration of a

concise summary of

where and when

porpoise bycatches

have been documented

in the Baltic Sea

iv. Implementation of

a pinger programme

on a short-term basis:

Pinger use to be made

mandatory in specific

high-risk areas and

fisheries on a short-

term basis (2-3 years).

Pinger use to be

reconsidered within

three years.1

Mandatory use of

pingers on bottom-

set gillnets,

entangling nets or

drift nets deployed

by vessels of 12m

or over in overall

length as from 1

June 2005 (1

January 2007).

No time limit, no

reevaluation clause.

(Articles 2 and 3

in conjunction

with Annex I and

Annex II)

B. Research and

Monitoring

- Analysis of stock

affinities of harbour

porpoises in the

“transition zone” of

the southwestern

Baltic

- Development and

application of new

techniques (e.g.

acoustic monitoring)

for assessing trends in

abundance

- Investigation of the

effects of various types

of sound and

disturbance (including

pinger signals, noise

from vessels and wind

parks) on harbour

porpoises

1 Secretariat’s note: The Jastarnia Plan received the support of MOP 4, Esbjerg, August 2003. The three-

year period referred to in the plan should therefore comprise the years 2004-2006

C. Marine protected

areas

Implementation of

management measures

within protected areas

to benefit porpoises

and/or their critical

resources

Establishment of a

coherent system of

Special Protected

Areas (NATURA

2000)

(Article 3 – Article

11)

D. Public awareness

- Development of a

regional approach to

Baltic harbour

porpoise conservation

- Enlisting the help of

the general public in

obtaining reports of

porpoise observations

throughout the Baltic

- Establishment of

direct communications

links with Baltic

fishermen

- Establishment of

national focal points

for public awareness

Annex VIII

Brussels, 23 January 2006

First Ministerial conference in Slovenia to promote Motorways of the sea

The first Ministerial Conference on the preparation of the future Motorways of the sea, will be held tomorrow in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Co-hosted by European Commission Vice-President in charge of transport, Jacques Barrot, together with the Slovenian Minister of Transport, Janez Božič, the conference will gather over 100 participants from industry, Member States and the European Parliament to discuss the challenges and opportunities of the Motorways of the sea. Part of the trans-European networks, this new initiative aims at replacing the heavy trucks on European highways with maritime transport. Key issues on the agenda of the conference include the selection of ports and port regions, maritime links and the question of financing.

Highlighting the importance of the initiative, Vice-President Barrot said: “In order to remain competitive, European industry needs an efficient and reliable transport system. Shifting more freight transport to the sea will contribute to more environmentally friendly traffic and reduce congestion. Motorways of the sea can be a practical and relatively low-cost solution.”

Motorways of the sea represent a new concept of intermodal transport based on high quality, frequent and regular maritime links between sea routes and a limited number of ports or port regions with sufficient capacity and with very good hinterland connections. In addition they can bypass natural barriers such as the Alps and the Pyrenees and will ensure better access to peripheral regions.

The current challenge is to concentrate the efforts of all actors concerned - both public and private - in order to identify the routes and subsequently implement the projects. The preparatory work is already underway. Four Motorways of the sea corridors have been designated as priority projects under the Trans-European Transport Network, encircling almost the whole of the European Union: Motorways of the Baltic sea, Motorway of the Sea of western Europe, Motorway of the Sea of south-eastern Europe and Motorway of the Sea of south-western Europe.

Road freight transport in the European Union is currently expected to increase by 70 % by 2020 and even double in the new Member States. Motorways of the sea will offer a competitive alternative to road transport, and can absorb a significant part of this increase. Intermodal transport based upon short sea shipping is more energy efficient, emits fewer pollutants, is less noisy and takes up less land compared to road transport – the success of the project will help to make the European transportation system more sustainable.

The Commission has produced a video entitled “Motorways of the sea”, which will be broadcast by Europe by Satellite on the 24th of January 2006 (please refer to the EbS schedule below for the exact time of broadcast).

For additional information please see: http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/intermodality/motorways_sea/index_en.htm

EbS broadcast schedule: http://europa.eu.int/comm/avservices/ebs/schedule.cfm

IP/06/65 Annex IX

REPORT OF THE SECOND MEETING OF THE JASTARNIA GROUP · search was one of the main activities of the...

Documents

Transcript of REPORT OF THE SECOND MEETING OF THE JASTARNIA GROUP · search was one of the main activities of the...